This is an appeal from a sentence of nine months in prison followed by three years of probation in 2012. The appellant was found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to two animals, killing two animals, and possessing a weapon with the intent to endanger public peace. The probation order contains 46 conditions, and the appellant claims that some of them are irrelevant, unnecessary, vague, unreasonable, and do not serve a valid purpose under the Criminal Code.
Kayla Bourque murdered and dismembered her family’s pet dog and cat. She documented and filmed these events. At her Simon Fraser University apartment, she also had what has been described as a “kill kit,” which included a knife. She pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to the two pets (section 445.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code), killing the two pets (section 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code), and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose to the public peace (section 88(2) of the Criminal Code). Ms. Bourque was sentenced to two months in prison (plus seven months in pre-trial custody) and three years on probation. Her probation includes 46 conditions designed to protect the public and rehabilitate Ms. Bourque. She requests leave to appeal some of the terms of her probation order as well as the lifetime animal prohibition order under s 447.1(1) of the Criminal Code.
Upon review of the facts of the initial trial and subsequent probation conditions, the Court determined that Ms. Bourque has a history of torturing and killing animals, and has indicated the desire to escalate that behaviour to humans. She enjoys this behaviour and is unaware of the harm and suffering she causes these creatures. She was diagnosed as meeting the criteria of sexual sadism, hematolagnia (drinking blood), zoosadism (inflicting pain and suffering on animals), and antisocial personality disorder, and her condition is considered to be permanent and not temporary. Based on the facts and psychiatric evaluations, Ms. Bourque is young and dangerous, and requires 24-hour supervision. The probation conditions are reasonable in this case for the most part, as they have a legitimate purpose and “any impediment to rehabilitation is outweighed by the need to protect the public” (para. 34). The Court found that she has forfeited the privilege of having animals as companions by betraying their trust in her.
The appeal was allowed in part only for the purpose of clarifying the language in conditions 35 and 39, which related to anything intended to conceal her identity and having a peace officer attend her place of residence at any time to confirm that she is complying with the condition that she not reside anywhere or have custody or control of any animal.